Wellll, not quite as such; it's that the lawsuit filed by those survivors (claiming damages from Cinemark because the theatre didn't prevent the attack) failed and the judge awarded court costs to the defendant, suggesting he felt the plaintiffs were really stretching their case.
-- Steve thinks it's the plaintiffs' legal team that should eat the cost, but apparently that's not how it works.
Well, it's phrased poorly in the story. Colorado allows people who have been sued to get their expenses paid by the person doing the suing if the suit fails, but it's not an automatic grant. Cinemark doesn't have to seek recovery. And in fact, they won't...from the survivors willing to let it go now instead of appealing. (http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/01/cinemark-drops-cost-claims-against-all-but-four-aurora-theater-shooting-victims-who-sued/)
Wow, some REALLY dumb Cinemark lawyers, like this won't turn around and bite them in the ass? You better believe the blowback is going to cost more than 700,000.
I suppose they're counting on the ignorance and mute indifference of the movie-going public (which, given the sort of movies which get made, is a widespread faith)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2016-09-01 03:33 pm (UTC)-- Steve thinks it's the plaintiffs' legal team that should eat the cost, but apparently that's not how it works.
(no subject)
Date: 2016-09-01 03:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2016-09-03 03:19 pm (UTC)http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-batman-shooting-lawsuit-20160822-snap-story.html
(no subject)
Date: 2016-09-04 05:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2016-09-02 06:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2016-09-02 09:35 pm (UTC)